The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case without deceiving the victim and without intention to commit the crime of deception was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and two months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Around October 2012, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A” is expected to take over the victim D’s “E engaging in closed oil refining business (hereinafter “E”), and if the Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won by accepting and operating the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., to pay the principal by KRW 7.5 million per month, and the principal will be repaid after three months.”

However, at the time of fact, the LAE had no intention or ability to pay interest or principal in accordance with the agreement, even if the defendant acquires and operates the assets, because it was unclear whether the defendant can pay the profits or receive the loan from the financial institution as collateral, even if he/she borrows the money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 150 million from the victim, at around November 16, 2012, from the F Association account in the name of the F Association in the Dispute Resolution E, around 16:03.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. The relevant legal fraud fraud is established by deceiving another person by deceiving him/her, leaving him/her into mistake, causing a dispositive act, thereby receiving property or pecuniary advantage, and there should be causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act.

On the other hand, what act constitutes a deception that causes mistake to others, and there is a causal relationship between such deception and property disposal.